AJ said: Bill, the story was written by the AP.

I think you're referring to the AP story that ran in the New York Times, filed the same day Narco News filed it's story — a few hours prior to Narco News' story, it seems, based on the date stamp now on that AP story. I did not see that story until after my story was filed, but it is not the same story ... far from it as I will explain.

Low in that AP story, there are references to the DIA and US Special Ops Command's involvement with surveillance and reconnaissance in advance of the rescue, based on anonymous sources as well, but the story does not reference U.S. special ops being involved in the actual rescue operation.

The Narco News source did say that was the case, and also provided details not in the AP story, such as the prisoners being handcuffed before being put on the helicopter, a fact that has since been proven true via the rescue video, released by Colombian officials days after Narco News' initial report.

Ask yourself: How could the Narco News source know that detail, if the source was not clued into the facts on the ground at the time of the rescue?

At a press conference timed with the release of that video yesterday, the Colombian Defense Minister, Juan Manuel Santos, said the following [as translated by an interpreter]

"This mission was 100 percent Colombian. ...The United States was informed 10 days, a week, before the mission. ... They [the US] were concerned about the risk of the people in captivity ... The United States also kept an airplane in the area as a type of intelligence ... but they did not participate in any form in the mission."

So it seems that now even Colombian officials are admitting U.S. involvement (in the most slippery way) after pretending on a world stage that this was entirely a Colombian operation. They just can't bring themselves to concede that U.S. boots were on the ground at the rescue site itself — but strangely will concede they were in a U.S. aircraft nearby.

That information about the aircraft in the area also wasn't in the AP story, but it was provided to us early on the morning of July 4, prior to the release of the video, by the Narco News source -- as reflected in this update to our original story.

That update also clarified more details of the highly compartmentalized rescue operation, which had occurred less than two days prior at that point.

From that update:

A total of two helicopters were involved in the rescue mission; however, one of those helicopters, for logistical reasons, did not land at the meeting place where the hostages were being held, the source says. The second helicopter was held back, on the ground, at a nearby location.

 

The helicopter that did land at the site in Colombia where the 15 hostages were gathered under FARC guard contained a total of 13 people - one nurse, one medical doctor, and 11 crew and military personnel (all disguised as humanitarian workers). The source says some of those 13 people were Colombians.

However, the source still maintains that up to six of those 13 individuals were U.S. special-operations personnel, as reported previously, and that the entire operation was carried out with the active involvement of the U.S. military in cooperation with the Colombian government.

None of that information is contained in the AP report. So to say AP had the same story is not accurate. 

What the AP story says is that the U.S. government "helped with surveillance that positively located the hostages within the past year using satellites, aircraft and ground reconnaissance — and had tracked them since then."

And since the three U.S. contractors were captured in 2003, according to the AP report, the U.S. spent "$250 million" on various efforts trying to find them.

The AP also reported on the FBI involvement in the hostages' case, a fact Narco News reported more than a year ago. See this link.

But the AP, in the second graph of its story, still claims, absent attribution that: "In the end, it was a daring operation by Colombian military intelligence agents that finally rescued the American trio from leftest rebels" — reinforcing the Bush administration's narrative.

Our story on July 3, states: "The source claims the rescue mission was a U.S.-led operation with Colombian support — as opposed to the reverse, as has been widely reported by the U.S. media."

So, as you see, AP did not have the same story, just elements of the story Narco News reported. As a reader, it's up to you to critically assess what to make of all this, though. 

Now, given what has been reported by both AP and Narco News, what's more believable:

1. That Colombian officials, after opening their nation's doors for years to heavy U.S. activity (surveillance, etc.) and allowing millions of U.S. dollars to be spent in pursuit of these hostages in Colombia, all of a sudden, decided unilaterally to plan a rescue mission, only informing the U.S. government 10 days prior to that mission?

2. That, with the United States' vast intelligence and on-the-ground special operations capabilities already deployed and in play, Colombia agreed to assist the United States government months ago (after U.S. intelligence had "positively located" them) in carrying out a complicated and risky operation involving the lives of three high-profile Americans and a French citizen?

Even absent the information provided by Narco News' source on this (who claims the latter scenario is the right answer) using your own powers of critical reasoning, how could you not conclude that the second option has the heavy weight of probablility on its side?